A quiet but significant intervention affecting Ghana’s dispute resolution landscape has emerged. In a press statement released April 14, 2026, the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Centre sounded a note of caution against the growing trend of resolving disputes on radio, television, and live online platforms.
At first glance, such platforms seem to democratise access to justice. But beneath the surface, there is a troubling question one must ask: when dispute resolution becomes public spectacle, does justice itself suffer?
The Law Behind the Warning: The ADR Centre’s Mandate
The authority of the ADR Centre is not merely administrative but is backed by statute. The Centre is established under section 114 of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798), Ghana’s primary legislative framework governing arbitration, mediation, and customary arbitration.
Act 798 codifies ADR as a legitimate alternative to litigation. It establishes the ADR Centre as a national institution to facilitate dispute resolution, and sets out the procedures, standards, and safeguards that govern ADR practice in Ghana.
Under section 115 of the Act, the Centre is mandated to provide facilities for the settlement of disputes through ADR, keep a register of mediators and arbitrators, and provide a list of them to parties who request for their services, promote awareness and use of ADR and issue specialised publications on all forms of ADR among others.
The Act further grants the centre independence, insulating it from the control of any person or authority in the performance of its functions.
This statutory grounding means the Centre is not merely offering guidance, but it is acting within a legal mandate to safeguard the integrity of ADR processes nationwide.
ADR Is Not Entertainment
The Centre’s central concern is straightforward and it is that dispute resolution is being repackaged as public content.
Across Ghana, it has become increasingly common to see disputes, ranging from family conflicts and commercial disagreements to even quasi-legal grievances, aired and “resolved” on live broadcasts. These sessions often mimic mediation, but without the safeguards that make mediation legitimate.
ADR, properly understood, is built on pillars such as consent, confidentiality, neutrality, and procedural fairness. Strip these away, and what remains may be a mere discussion, anything but dispute resolution in the legal sense.
The Risks of “Trial by Media”
The Centre identifies some dangers.
First, there is the issue of confidentiality. ADR processes are designed to protect sensitive information. Media-based sessions, by contrast, expose disputes to public scrutiny, often irreversibly.
Second, there is procedural unfairness. Media platforms are not bound by rules of evidence, neutrality, or due process. Power imbalances, often between host and guest, or between disputing parties, can easily distort outcomes.
Third, there is the problem of non-enforceability. Under Act 798, mediated settlements and arbitral awards derive legal effect through recognised processes. Outcomes reached on air, however persuasive, lack legal enforceability.
Finally, there is reputational harm. Public airing of disputes can damage parties in ways that no legal remedy can fully undo.
Why ADR Matters More Than Ever
The passage of Act 798 marked a deliberate shift toward faster, more flexible, and less adversarial dispute resolution. The law aligns with international standards, including principles drawn from the UNCITRAL Model Law, and seeks to ease the burden on congested courts.
Yet, despite its promise, ADR in Ghana still faces challenges. Limited public awareness, uneven access, and underutilisation in certain sectors are a few of these challenges.
It is against this backdrop that media-based dispute resolution gains popularity. Where formal systems feel distant or slow, informal alternatives step in. The risk, however, is that convenience begins to replace credibility.
Is the ADR Centre right to intervene?
On balance, yes, with some caution.
The directive reinforces that dispute resolution is not merely about reaching outcomes but about how those outcomes are reached. By insisting on professional standards, the Centre is safeguarding public confidence in ADR.
At the same time, the directive should not be read as hostility toward the media. The Centre itself acknowledges the media’s role in promoting access to justice. The real issue is not media involvement per se, but unregulated substitution of formal ADR processes.
A more constructive path lies in collaboration. The Centre’s intention to engage institutions such as the National Media Commission and the Ghana Journalists Association is therefore a welcome step. Properly structured, media platforms can educate the public about ADR without distorting its practice.
The Centre’s closing recommendation is that parties should seek dispute resolution through recognised ADR institutions or certified practitioners to ensure that disputes are handled by trained professionals, within a framework that guarantees fairness, confidentiality, and legal enforceability.
If ADR is to fulfil its promise in Ghana, its integrity must be preserved. And that means resisting the temptation to turn justice into content.
